If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   Sheldon Adelson tried to buy the Presidency for about $150,000,000. This month he'll save $150,000,000 in taxes by paying himself an early dividend. You do the math   (cnbc.com) divider line 303
    More: Obvious, Micky Arison, free cash flow, share repurchase, special dividend  
•       •       •

14379 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Dec 2012 at 6:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



303 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-05 01:21:00 PM  

moefuggenbrew: But, without Romney, who will close the tax loopholes?


I say we do both ,raise rates and close loopholes
 
2012-12-05 01:27:48 PM  
In case you're all wondering, the answer is 178. Scientists figured out that 178 is the highest number of luxury yachts a person can water ski behind at one given moment. I hope you're all taking that into consideration when wondering if our billionaires are being taxed enough.
 
2012-12-05 01:29:23 PM  
0.tqn.com

reputationxchange.com
 
2012-12-05 01:33:13 PM  

Hobodeluxe: moefuggenbrew: But, without Romney, who will close the tax loopholes?

I say we do both ,raise rates and close loopholes


The 35% nominal rate is actually too high; it's a nice, symbolic gesture to try and assuage the masses that corporations are paying through the nose, but globally speaking it's an uncompetitive rate.

Now, everybody knows that no corporation with an accountant worth a damn actually pays that rate. It's the same thing as the old "The top marginal rate in the 1950s was 91% -- Nobody actually paid that because of all the deductions!" argument.

The corporate rate, for the sake of global competition, should probably be lowered to the 20%-25% range. That said, it needs to be paired with the loopholes allowing corporations to take earnings offshore and bring losses onshore to be absolutely destroyed. That's the key that allows corporations to avoid paying domestic income taxes at anywhere near the nominal rate.
 
2012-12-05 01:39:18 PM  
Who cares?

Who do you think is happier? You, or Adelson who just lost the bid to buy a President?
 
2012-12-05 01:43:52 PM  

the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

I'm not rich but I am a small business owner. I avoid paying a LOT of taxes by claiming a significant portion of my income as dividends. That means I pay no FICA tax on that income, which would normally be about 15%. Also, most of my expenses related to work that you pay for *after* taxes I get to pay for *before* taxes. Highlights include 10% of my mortgage and utilities, gas and tolls to and from work, etc. I generally make 50% more than the guy sitting next to me doing the same work and pay less in taxes, and I don't just mean the rate.. I mean in nominal dollars I pay less. If we assume that the guy sitting next to me is paying his "fair share" then I am not. Of course I'm paying my "legally required" share, but it's probably not fair compared to what he pays while making less income to do the same work. And that's just me, the 'little guy' running a small business without a full time accountant wrangling out off shore accounts and other nonsense to minimize my taxes. In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about.


This. The rich pay a flat rate of 15%, minus deductions, the rest of us pay up to 39% including FICA on the same income. It ain't right.

In 2011, my taxable income was 5x my cheque due to selling a bunch of stock; I paid a blended tax and FICA rate of 14.5% which is more than Romney, but far less than I will this year on my working person's income.

If you think the system is anywhere near fair, you're either a callous and self-entitled billionaire, or simply ignorant of the facts (Fox viewer).
 
2012-12-05 01:44:39 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.


I thought you said class welfare there for a second.
 
2012-12-05 01:44:47 PM  

Hobodeluxe: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

yeah the rest of the world looks at us in amazement. it's like a bus full of people letting the retard drive.
they see a huge debt,historically low tax rates. and they say can't these morons figure out the solution to the problem?
why are people in tri corner hats defending the billionaires who are bleeding them dry?


No one has gotten poor underestimating the intelligence of the public.
 
2012-12-05 01:47:25 PM  

mjjt: Who cares?

Who do you think is happier? You, or Adelson who just lost the bid to buy a President?


I'm awfully happy. Plus, I don't look like an anthromorphized foreskin AND the candidate I supported (both with my vote and my time) won.
 
2012-12-05 01:51:04 PM  

BKITU: Hobodeluxe: moefuggenbrew: But, without Romney, who will close the tax loopholes?

I say we do both ,raise rates and close loopholes

The 35% nominal rate is actually too high; it's a nice, symbolic gesture to try and assuage the masses that corporations are paying through the nose, but globally speaking it's an uncompetitive rate.

Now, everybody knows that no corporation with an accountant worth a damn actually pays that rate. It's the same thing as the old "The top marginal rate in the 1950s was 91% -- Nobody actually paid that because of all the deductions!" argument.

The corporate rate, for the sake of global competition, should probably be lowered to the 20%-25% range. That said, it needs to be paired with the loopholes allowing corporations to take earnings offshore and bring losses onshore to be absolutely destroyed. That's the key that allows corporations to avoid paying domestic income taxes at anywhere near the nominal rate.


In the UK, dividends are taxable as ordinary income, but you get a credit for the tax the corporation paid .... this not only avoids the "taxed twice" argument but is fair, and puts a brake on corporate welfare.

1. Get rid of the entire concept of long term capital gains, or put a modest cap on it to make it a middle class perk for investing comparable to 401(k)'s (e.g. first $100k is at current CG rates, rest is income). The key is to tax the rich on their market income as ordinary income - investing is their job.

2. Remove the cap on FICA, and make all income liable for it

3. Use the massive theoretical increase in revenue to reduce tax rates across the board linearly

This not only resets the system to a realistic revenue level and gets rid of massive deficits, but puts a bit more money in lower middle class pockets, which is the surest way to stimulate the economy.
 
2012-12-05 01:55:28 PM  

jso2897:
I'm just surprised that they haven't figured out some legal way to only pay dividends to the big shots, and not the small investors. That would make the most sense from the psycopathic corporate viewpoint.
They need to spend some of that money on better lawyers and lobbyists,,


,,and candidates, don't forget candidates.
 
2012-12-05 01:55:42 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Vertdang: GoodyearPimp: Debeo Summa Credo: taxed twice.

My salary is taxed many times. Then I can spend it and it usually gets taxed at least one more time. But taxing dividends "twice" is HORRIBLE.

I love when people post that cartoon, as it proves my point, contrary to what the poster is thinking.

Hint: count how many times the income of the plumbing business is taxed before it gets in the pockets of owners, likewise the record store business and the bank. One of these things is not like the others.


Yes, except for the bank, none of those "others" are creations of the government. Without the laws created by the government that bank doesn't exist. You would be dealing directly with the rich guy instead of the bank, and that rich guy would have to shoulder all the liability that entails. So the rich guy could deal directly with those bank customers, but he didn't want to. So he got the government to create something that protects him. It was created as a separate entity, and now gets treated as such. Oh look, now it is not the "shareholder". There's a transaction that creates income for a party. Income is taxed.

So no, you are wrong. If the bank goes out of business the customers that got screwed can only go after the assests of the bank, not the rich guy. We'll get rid of that "double taxation" when we get rid of the concept of limited liability corporations. Something tells me every single shareholder is now recoiling from your complete stupidity.
 
2012-12-05 01:59:18 PM  

mittromneysdog: AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.

Funny how people like you only call it "class warfare" when the middle class fights back.


Well, it is warfare only when there is resistance. Otherwise it is just loving abuse.
 
2012-12-05 02:03:48 PM  

Grungehamster: mrshowrules: Grungehamster: ManRay: After this election, can we at least agree that money in elections is not a problem? This dude (and others like him) spent tens of millions of dollars and got...nothing.

Look up the Election of 1896; it's possible to buy an election, you just have to want it bad enough to pay the price (and actually present a viable alternative candidate.) Plus the side that spent the most still won:

Obama:
- $553.2 million by campaign
- $263.2 million by DNC
- $58 million by Super PACs

Total = $874.6 million

Romney:
- $360.4 million by campaign
- $284 million by RNC
- $200 million by Super PACs

Total = $844.6 million

It's not just an Obama thing; incumbent presidents always raise more money than their opponent, it's just that this election was closer on the money game (and the sources of this money were more obscured than any election since Watergate.)

Not saying this is wrong but I'd be curious about the source if you have it. Romney out spent Obama on advertising.

Link

This Atlantic Wire article from Election Day, which seems a little light in the source department, sadly. The link you shared looks like it only covers TV ad spending; chances are a good chunk of the difference was from Obama having a lot more campaign offices and other non-TV related advertising.


Plus he also forgot the entire Fox News budget. MSNBC does not count towards Obama because they do get critical of him and are not part of the party communication apparatus, nor have they proposed funding political candidates. 

Fox's uncritical support for all things republican, in fact setting republican agendas gets them treated as a true super-PAC.
 
2012-12-05 02:10:23 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: mittromneysdog: hobberwickey: the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: At average corporate rates of about 25-27%, and dividends of 15%, all in tax rates are approximately 36-38%, which as you said is approxiimately (well , in the ballpark of) top ordinary rate of 35%. I'm not arguing that this is unfair, rather rebutting those who consider only the 15% rate and scream that the rate favors the rich.

The rate favors the rich because the rich person is NOT the corporation, even if they own a portion of it. It means if you're wealthy you get to put the burden of your income tax on the corporation which you own shares of.

This

The real flaw in his argument is comparing what ownership of stock means to what other kinds of ownership means. A sole proprietor, a partner, and even a silent partner (the most like of the three unto a corporate shareholder) are all liable in full for the debts of their businesses. That's because there is real legal identity between sole proprietors, partners, and their businesses. By divorcing personal responsibility from corporate ownership, you likewise divorce the legal identity of shareholders from corporations. Therefore, when a corporation pays its dividends, it is really paying separate legal entities the same way it does when it pays its employees their salaries and wages.

Make shareholders liable in full for the debts of their corporations, and it will make sense to treat them as one and the same. As of now, they are clearly not.

Limited liability has exactly zero to do with corporate taxation. Limited liability is intended to improve access to equity capital for such companies. Limited liability also exists among many LLPs and LLCs that are not subject to corporate taxation.

Would you buy any stock if you knew that of the company did something wrong you might be on the hook over and above your initial investment? Would you even invest in a 401k or mutual fund when the manager might invest in a company that might be subject to huge liability ...


Actually you idiot it has everything to do with it. The creation of the corporation to separate the liability also creates the separation of the tax liability. Oh look the same word showed up twice. Tax liability for the corporation is separate from the shareholders. I'm glad the idiots like you are finally being ignored.
 
2012-12-05 02:12:54 PM  

ParaHandy: 2. Remove the cap on FICA, and make all income liable for it


Are we going to do the same for the payouts on the other end?

Part of the reason FICA income is capped at ~$110k is because benefit payouts are capped as well. Removing the cap on one end means either removing it on the other, or else acknowledging publicly that SS is a gigantic revenue-moving scheme designed to soak the rich.

I'm comfortable with the latter, but I doubt the rest of the country would be.

But SS isn't contributing to the problem anyway. I say we leave it the fark alone.
 
2012-12-05 02:16:58 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: So I should join the farklib money grab as well? "hey, that guy has more stuff than me! Let's take it!"

You deadbeats can sit around all day in a circle jerk and complain that others have earned more than you and figure out ways to take it. Have fun.


The money grab is on the second Thursday of every month. The circle jerk is every Monday, and is followed by a fat dog search. In case you're interested.
 
2012-12-05 02:27:52 PM  

untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.



I keep hearing people say this and I don't understand the logic of it.

We live in a country that requires federal, state and local taxes to operate. Without these taxes we lose all roads, bridges, networks, education, emergency services, defense, clean food and water, and the preservation of our personal and communal health and land. As an individual there is no way I can volunteer enough of my time or give enough of my income to make up for our social inadequacies. In fact, if I gave all my time and money towards fixing the problem I'd be adding to the rolls of people who require assistance to survive; thus canceling out any good I may be attempting to accomplish. However, if an entire country of people were to give a bit more time and a bit more money we can not only repair any problems we may have, but can continue grow and prosper.
 
2012-12-05 02:37:04 PM  

mjjt: Who cares?

Who do you think is happier? You, or Adelson who just lost the bid to buy a President?


I love it when people do this.

Yes, the guy who can literally do anything he wants in life is real miserable.

I guess the fox and the grapes and all.
 
2012-12-05 02:41:02 PM  
This is where I remind everyone in the thread that business are taxed AFTER EXPENSES. Yes, that's right, folks! Every penny of employee salary and every penny of expense such as acquiring your competition or buying a new skyscraper to house the corporate headquarters is excluded FIRST before taxes. (Yes, this is simplified, most real estate is amortized out over many years, but it all comes off eventually.)

I say, in order to equalize the tax code, I get to deduct everything I spend first and only be taxed on the "profit" too, which would be the amount I put in savings... which is a pitiful, shameful, feeble amount.

High corporate taxes ENCOURAGE GROWTH by forcing the company to re-invest and spend the profit or be taxed on it. High personal taxes on the wealthy ENCOURAGE GROWTH by forcing the wealthy to create new businesses which will sustain losses to offset the profits from other ventures, or force them to donate wealth to charities, again all to avoid paying it out in taxes. Employees are an expense to a company and a great way to eat up profit and build for more growth. Our highest rates of employment and wealth can be correlated to our highest tax rates.

Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.

Trickle down doesn't work. Roll the tax code back to 1958. Nominal maximum at 91% sounds just about right. Diminishing returns is the only thing that kept the greed in check. Recognize that if you have that kind of success, you made it on the backs and necks of thousands of others, and pay your "fair share" for the infrastructure you use to such great extent.
 
2012-12-05 02:52:57 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.


I keep hearing people say this and I don't understand the logic of it.

We live in a country that requires federal, state and local taxes to operate. Without these taxes we lose all roads, bridges, networks, education, emergency services, defense, clean food and water, and the preservation of our personal and communal health and land. As an individual there is no way I can volunteer enough of my time or give enough of my income to make up for our social inadequacies. In fact, if I gave all my time and money towards fixing the problem I'd be adding to the rolls of people who require assistance to survive; thus canceling out any good I may be attempting to accomplish. However, if an entire country of people were to give a bit more time and a bit more money we can not only repair any problems we may have, but can continue grow and prosper.


You just succinctly described the role of government. We elect people and give them a portion of our earnings to take care of those common needs and problems that we must have in order to have a stable, prosperous society. These days, too many people think they are entitled to opt out of this social contract and call the contract itself evil. Yet they demand the benefits of that contract. It's ludicrous and the product either of ignorance or avarice.
 
2012-12-05 02:54:44 PM  

jso2897: AverageAmericanGuy: Here we go. Nothing like a good class warfare thread.

All the investors are getting the special dividend. Sorry your grubby little paws couldn't get a grip on a greater part of it, government.

I'm just surprised that they haven't figured out some legal way to only pay dividends to the big shots, and not the small investors. That would make the most sense from the psycopathic corporate viewpoint.
They need to spend some of that money on better lawyers and lobbyists.


That would be special shares. And they exist. And no, you can't have any.
 
2012-12-05 03:05:21 PM  

Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.


OWNED the stock, EARNED the dividend. To learn more about how stocks work contact your local library.

Where's my "the more you know rainbow" at?
 
2012-12-05 03:07:11 PM  
Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.

How dare you suggest that someone that only has their labor to sell enjoys a decent life. They should be forced to live in the gutter and be satisfied with whatever scraps the rich deem them worthy of.
 
2012-12-05 03:18:03 PM  

OhioExPat: Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.

How dare you suggest that someone that only has their labor to sell enjoys a decent life. They should be forced to live in the gutter and be satisfied with whatever scraps the rich deem them worthy of.


Why yes, I can believe this. In 1966, my father bought a three bedroom house (albeit a small one) and paid $6,950 for it. The mortgage was for 7 years. He also bought a new car for $875, but had to save up for that. Auto loans were kind of pricey back then and the sensibility was that one borrowed money only when absolutely necessary. He had four kids and earned about $6,000/year, which was actually pretty good money. A friend's dad made $10,000 per year and we all thought of them as "rich."
 
2012-12-05 03:40:53 PM  

JackieRabbit: OhioExPat: Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.

How dare you suggest that someone that only has their labor to sell enjoys a decent life. They should be forced to live in the gutter and be satisfied with whatever scraps the rich deem them worthy of.

Why yes, I can believe this. In 1966, my father bought a three bedroom house (albeit a small one) and paid $6,950 for it. The mortgage was for 7 years. He also bought a new car for $875, but had to save up for that. Auto loans were kind of pricey back then and the sensibility was that one borrowed money only when absolutely necessary. He had four kids and earned about $6,000/year, which was actually pretty good money. A friend's dad made $10,000 per year and we all thought of them as "rich."


Just so that we all know our units here, in 2012 dollars (source, which says inflation was 750.4% over the last 56 years):
-house: $59,104.90
-new car: $7,441.26
-dad's annual salary: $51,025.81
-"rich guy" annual salary: $85,043.01

The weird part is that only the home price really went out of control. A new car is 3x the 1956 price, but you can still get a pretty good used car for ~$8k. $50k and $85k are still pretty good middle-class incomes - a two-earner household pulling down $135k/year is gonna do just fine in Obama's America.
 
2012-12-05 03:47:59 PM  

mjjt: Who cares?

Who do you think is happier? You, or Adelson who just lost the bid to buy a President?


It is the best screw up since Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Vanderbilt decided to make Roosevelt the vice president so he could never challenge their trusts and still keep McKinley in their pockets.
 
2012-12-05 03:54:13 PM  

Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.


Um, if it's a dividend, then the company earned it. That means all shareholders, many of whom have no other involvement with or relationship to the company, will get a share.
 
2012-12-05 03:59:35 PM  
How odd subby deigns not mention the nearly billion dollars to Obama in illegal campaign contributions, but hey, gimme that bacon subby says to Obama
 
2012-12-05 04:01:53 PM  

PaulRB: But you don't understand, the super-duper-uber rich need MORE tax relief, right? (you can't just buy politicians with leftover dividend money... oh, I guess you can)


Why pay taxes to the government when I can make better decisions about where to put the funds? I just heard of a great deal where I can pay for some waitress's kid to get braces.
 
2012-12-05 04:22:25 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: How odd subby deigns not mention the nearly billion dollars to Obama in illegal campaign contributions, but hey, gimme that bacon subby says to Obama


citation please. or are exempt under the works for/gets news from the Fox Network clause?
 
2012-12-05 04:22:41 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: How odd subby deigns not mention the nearly billion dollars to Obama in illegal campaign contributions, but hey, gimme that bacon subby says to Obama


Subby should be mad about something that never actually happened?

Ooooooo...kayyyyyy....
 
2012-12-05 04:25:33 PM  

sufferpuppet: Alphax: I dare someone to claim that they 'earned' that money.

OWNED the stock, EARNED the dividend. To learn more about how stocks work contact your local library.

Where's my "the more you know rainbow" at?


If he EARNED it, it should be taxed the same as WAGES. Including Medicare and Social Security taxes. Because if he earned it, then he worked for it, and it's income, and should be taxed as income under income tax rules.
 
2012-12-05 04:47:08 PM  

BKITU: Hobodeluxe: moefuggenbrew: But, without Romney, who will close the tax loopholes?

I say we do both ,raise rates and close loopholes

The 35% nominal rate is actually too high; it's a nice, symbolic gesture to try and assuage the masses that corporations are paying through the nose, but globally speaking it's an uncompetitive rate.

Now, everybody knows that no corporation with an accountant worth a damn actually pays that rate. It's the same thing as the old "The top marginal rate in the 1950s was 91% -- Nobody actually paid that because of all the deductions!" argument.

The corporate rate, for the sake of global competition, should probably be lowered to the 20%-25% range. That said, it needs to be paired with the loopholes allowing corporations to take earnings offshore and bring losses onshore to be absolutely destroyed. That's the key that allows corporations to avoid paying domestic income taxes at anywhere near the nominal rate.


the rich don't pay that top rate either. and if you want to compete with the Chinese and others in a race to the bottom fine. But for myself I choose to seek another path for American labor. One that brings them up to our level. Not us down to theirs. and if that means taking a huge inflationary hit then so be it. I'd rather have a good paying job and pay more for a tv or a pair of socks knowing an American made it than work for slave wages.
 
2012-12-05 05:12:44 PM  

OhioExPat: Can you believe in this country not 50 years ago a single person with a high school education could work a single job and raise a family, buy a house, maybe a new car every 5 years or so? Yes, that's what these greedy fuccers have stolen from us, and it's high time they paid it back.




As a Millennial, I cannot even begin to fathom this.

/Born in 1985
 
2012-12-05 05:29:51 PM  

Hobodeluxe: the rich don't pay that top rate either. and if you want to compete with the Chinese and others in a race to the bottom fine. But for myself I choose to seek another path for American labor. One that brings them up to our level. Not us down to theirs. and if that means taking a huge inflationary hit then so be it. I'd rather have a good paying job and pay more for a tv or a pair of socks knowing an American made it than work for slave wages.


I totally agree with you regarding ensuring trying to keep manufacturing domestic and lifting up the working class. You seem to have missed the point of the entire second half of my post where I advocate for killing the loopholes that allow for corporations to offshore earnings while bringing their losses onshore. If you kill the loopholes while keeping the nominal rate at 35%, you're not creating a race to the bottom, but rather pricing yourself out of the rest of the First World.

This isn't about competing with China and dismantling the social safety net. It's about competing with the labor forces in Canada (15% corporate rate) and Europe (most are 10%-25%) and Japan (25.5%) and South Korea (22%). A manufacturer who needs highly-skilled, first-world-educated labor has plenty of options on the table that are on par with the US labor force. I'm simply talking about bringing the US corporate taxation paradigm in line with other First World competitors.
 
2012-12-05 05:46:43 PM  
Why does the article compare some payouts to the number of houses the person can buy? Obviously all that money will be used to create jobs. That's what the between the scrolly words tv talkers tell me.
 
2012-12-05 05:56:18 PM  

the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $100 and dividends $40, it is taxed at the corporate level on the full hundred. Then the $40 is taxed again at the individual level.

The total tax burden of corporate taxes + long term capital gains tax is approximately equal to personal income tax rates if the corporation had paid those dividends out as salaries.


This is true, but in a little less than a month, dividends are considered income instead of long term capital gains, which makes no sense.

I have a thousand dollars worth of stock.

A. The corporation buys back a bunch of stock, making my stock worth another $150.
B. The corporation gives out the same money as dividends, giving my $150.

In both cases, the effect is the same- the corporation sends out a bunch of money, increasing my value by $150. It should be taxes the same, and right now, it is. However, starting on January 1st, the buyback is taxed at 15% while the dividend is taxed at 41%. That's not the way it should work.

The way it works now is fair. Having it taxed at the shareholder level as income and deducted as an expense at the corporate level is also fair. Having it taxed as income at the shareholder level and also taxed at the corporate level is unfair.

If it's income for the worker/shareholder/whoever, then it should be deductible for the corporation. If it's a capital gain, then it should not be deductible for the corporation, but taxed as a capital gain. The only exception would be dividends.
 
2012-12-05 06:07:14 PM  

Mija: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread

Like hell. I don't need millions of dollars, I just like to make ends meet.

I'd like others to pay their fair share.

You make more, you pay more.

They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

I am sure master wil reward you for your loyalty. Maybe a half day in the fields.


Sorry, facts are facts. You guys can sit around and lie to each other about why you are poor, but they're still lies. Don't get mad at me when I call you on your lies and stupidity.
 
2012-12-05 06:14:52 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: the_geek: Debeo Summa Credo: For example, if a corporation has taxable income of $100 and dividends $40, it is taxed at the corporate level on the full hundred. Then the $40 is taxed again at the individual level.

The total tax burden of corporate taxes + long term capital gains tax is approximately equal to personal income tax rates if the corporation had paid those dividends out as salaries.

This is true, but in a little less than a month, dividends are considered income instead of long term capital gains, which makes no sense.

I have a thousand dollars worth of stock.

A. The corporation buys back a bunch of stock, making my stock worth another $150.
B. The corporation gives out the same money as dividends, giving my $150.

In both cases, the effect is the same- the corporation sends out a bunch of money, increasing my value by $150. It should be taxes the same, and right now, it is. However, starting on January 1st, the buyback is taxed at 15% while the dividend is taxed at 41%. That's not the way it should work.

The way it works now is fair. Having it taxed at the shareholder level as income and deducted as an expense at the corporate level is also fair. Having it taxed as income at the shareholder level and also taxed at the corporate level is unfair.

If it's income for the worker/shareholder/whoever, then it should be deductible for the corporation. If it's a capital gain, then it should not be deductible for the corporation, but taxed as a capital gain. The only exception would be dividends.


For what it's worth, based on this post you also agree with me re dividend taxes.
 
2012-12-05 06:18:45 PM  

Smackledorfer: Debeo Summa Credo: jayhawk88: But I was told that CEO's used all that extra money to plow right back into their businesses!

But I was told companies are just "sitting on" that money (whatever that means). These special dividends should be great because it means companies actually have to go to the vault or mattress or wherever these vast hoards of cash are supposedly being sat on and put them back in the economy.

The fact that they have the money to pay them proves they were just sitting on them, doesn't it?

Unless the companies are laying people off, borrowing cash, or selling assests anyways.

So you have been wrong in the hundred times over the last year you've claimed they weren't cash-heavy.


No, my argument has always been that the companies have their cash balances invested in either money markets or bank deposits. Money markets directly finance other businesses and banks relend deposits (they don't just put them in the vault), so the money isn't actually "just sitting there".
 
2012-12-06 12:31:18 AM  

untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.


That's not actually true. If you send more to the IRS than you owe, they'll cash your check and then send you a refund. If you choose not to cash that check, they'll just waste money and time trying to get you your money back.

If you would like to make a contribution to pay down the U.S. public debt, you can send money to the Bureau of the Public debt any time you want. Just go to: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#De btFinance
 
2012-12-06 12:47:19 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: How odd subby deigns not mention the nearly billion dollars to Obama in illegal campaign contributions, but hey, gimme that bacon subby says to Obama


So, every single dollar Obama received in campaign contributions was illegal? (You didn't mention PAC money, just campaign contributions.) By what logic?

If that's the case, where do I apply for a refund? Now that Obama won, I'd love to have all my money back. Pretty sure my donations were legal, though... Not to mention spent.
 
2012-12-06 01:08:58 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Mija: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread

Like hell. I don't need millions of dollars, I just like to make ends meet.

I'd like others to pay their fair share.

You make more, you pay more.

They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

I am sure master wil reward you for your loyalty. Maybe a half day in the fields.

Sorry, facts are facts. You guys can sit around and lie to each other about why you are poor, but they're still lies. Don't get mad at me when I call you on your lies and stupidity.


You confuse by arguing rationally at intervals and then defying logic and displayed evidence at many others.

Your loyalties remain starkly clear however. You have been quite excellently refuted in several posts that apparantly warranted no response, while even as the thread dies you post in succession to comments you felt able to defend.

I don't feel having more money than someone else means that you are smarter or morally superior to someone. Passing judgment on billions I've not met is something I find distasteful and reminds me of Monarchism. No god but the sick would elevate others by bloodline or if you prefer wealth alone. I also find it distasteful and likely immoral that those who have so many many times more than most are so much more likely to try and claim it as theirs alone. Money to me is a neccessity, often earned. But no human is deserving of so many thousands of magnitudes of luxury and power over their countrymen. Not for any widget or service they are responsible for. I believe that some money and power junkies would benefit from a stint in rehab, but you can't help those that don't want it.

Regardless, you are on the wrong side of history, defending the most amoral in an amoral system and debating... Occasionally quite dub... Those who question it.iously
 
2012-12-06 02:19:34 AM  
Somehow posting from my cellphone was imperfect. Should have read dubiously with no random word near the end.
 
2012-12-06 02:39:54 AM  

mittromneysdog: Am I remembering wrong, or was Lelio Lestat de Lioncourt's original name?


Whoa, I've been outed! No one's ever brought that up before.
 
2012-12-06 05:53:37 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: One possible solution is the tax is deferred until the property is transferred to a non-family member.


Whatever you're worried about "corporations" doing families can and have done as well (and I'm not just talking about the 15th century, though it makes a good example). Ford, Cargill and Wal-Mart are all "family" companies that your scheme would largely exempt from taxes.

/ And I'm willing to be that if being "family owned" provided a tax advantage those companies would be even less distributed than they are today.
 
2012-12-06 06:20:14 AM  

inclemency: Debeo Summa Credo: Mija: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Debeo Summa Credo: Jake Havechek: Another asshole born on third who thinks he hit a triple.

The rich in America have it pretty good. Look at the tax rates in England, for example.

In other words, "Gimme".

/so much bitter envy in this thread

Like hell. I don't need millions of dollars, I just like to make ends meet.

I'd like others to pay their fair share.

You make more, you pay more.

They do pay more. Alot more. Dont fool yourself into the misguided belief that the rich aren't paying their "fair share".

I am sure master wil reward you for your loyalty. Maybe a half day in the fields.

Sorry, facts are facts. You guys can sit around and lie to each other about why you are poor, but they're still lies. Don't get mad at me when I call you on your lies and stupidity.

You confuse by arguing rationally at intervals and then defying logic and displayed evidence at many others.

Your loyalties remain starkly clear however. You have been quite excellently refuted in several posts that apparantly warranted no response, while even as the thread dies you post in succession to comments you felt able to defend.

I don't feel having more money than someone else means that you are smarter or morally superior to someone. Passing judgment on billions I've not met is something I find distasteful and reminds me of Monarchism. No god but the sick would elevate others by bloodline or if you prefer wealth alone. I also find it distasteful and likely immoral that those who have so many many times more than most are so much more likely to try and claim it as theirs alone. Money to me is a neccessity, often earned. But no human is deserving of so many thousands of magnitudes of luxury and power over their countrymen. Not for any widget or service they are responsible for. I believe that some money and power junkies would benefit from a stint in rehab, but you can't help those that don't want it.

Regardless, you are on the wrong side of history, defending the most amoral in an amoral system and debating... Occasionally quite dub... Those who question it.iously


There are many many responses to my centist posts, as would be expected in a forum consisting of 90% far left liberals. Time precludes me from responding to all.

There were one or two upthread that were reasonable that I was unable to respond because it would have required me to parse to cite the few areas I disagree from the many I do agree (I think one was from grungehamster).

Another thing I can't do is refute utterly nonsensical posts that veer off on tangents, of which there have been many, including yours.
 
2012-12-06 07:24:38 AM  

JadedRaverLA: untaken_name: I assume everyone who thinks people should pay more taxes has already sent in their voluntary contributions to the IRS. They'll let you pay as much as you want, you know.

That's not actually true. If you send more to the IRS than you owe, they'll cash your check and then send you a refund. If you choose not to cash that check, they'll just waste money and time trying to get you your money back.

If you would like to make a contribution to pay down the U.S. public debt, you can send money to the Bureau of the Public debt any time you want. Just go to: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#De btFinance


There is also a box for it on your tax return, where you can specify how much you are donating.
 
2012-12-06 12:57:48 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: No, my argument has always been that the companies have their cash balances invested in either money markets or bank deposits. Money markets directly finance other businesses and banks relend deposits (they don't just put them in the vault), so the money isn't actually "just sitting there".


Your previous arguments were that they don't sit on the money, they have it working for them and reinvest it in business and job creation blah blah.

Now 'sticking it in the bank' counts as that? Great, Then the poors are job creators too and we might as well redistribute wealth because they'll put everything they don't spend in a money market account too!

But I think inclemency pegged you accurately above. If you aren't an intentional troll and want your serious points to be addressed, you shouldn't spend half your posts creating strawmen to troll people or attacking everyone who disagrees with you just jealous of the wealthy.
 
Displayed 50 of 303 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report